Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

Understanding the Tribunal

Listen to this guy. Believe it or not, there are some of us who would rather nobody be banned. Not that we want to give a free pass for bad behavior, but it would be better if people adjusted their behavior to be decent to one another. I think you deserved this last ban, and as much as I dislike how you have handled yourself in this thread, I'd still like to see you improve your behavior and continue playing this great game. You can't control how other people act, but you can control how you respond. In the end, we are responsible for our own actions and other people are responsible for theirs. We are also responsible with how we react to other people's actions.

How are you guys able to handle in-game muting? Say I'm being harassed because I'm having a bad game. I mute the offending player, and then I get reported for refusing to communicate when they decide that it's time to stop being mean to me and actually want to communicate strategy to me. Is there a current process that can be shown in the Tribunal, or one in the works, to show if someone was muted. I'm not entirely sure one report of refusing to communicate would push someone up to the Tribunal without other cases backing it, but let's play what-if.

How are you guys able to handle in-game muting? Say I'm being harassed because I'm having a bad game. I mute the offending player, and then I get reported for refusing to communicate when they decide that it's time to stop being mean to me and actually want to communicate strategy to me. Is there a current process that can be shown in the Tribunal, or one in the works, to show if someone was muted. I'm not entirely sure one report of refusing to communicate would push someone up to the Tribunal without other cases backing it, but let's play what-if.

I don't remember ever seeing a player banned for Refusing to Communicate. Most players only use pings and call "mias" and that's it.

Yea... I'd have to say that going by the BBB alone isn't enough to complain by. By comparison Blizzard gets 865% more complaints than Riot games. How do they have such a high rating? Because they're paying for it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Tribunal has been up for over a year. If it's not a problem now, it's unlikely to become a problem unless something changes in the system on Riot's side.

That analogy is completely false; it is always optimal to make improvements to something, especially considering that the Tribunal just recently got upgraded. =\

Besides, this isn't any sort of change. Someone is asking for clarification for a conflict in policy.

Oh, and Lyte, since I'm not sure where else this would go: the ignore feature has some gaping holes in it. I've run into problems several times where I've ignored someone after a toxic match, get put with them again, and get subjected to the same toxicity in-game. It doesn't really help when I don't know these players have been nuisances before (at least usually before the third time I see them unless it's back-to-back) until after I get out of the match, go to ignore them, and they're already blocked in theory. Ignoring works in the lobby, but doesn't mute them in-game or seem to stop me from getting matched with them in the future. For a feature that's supposed to allow me to get a toxic player out of my hair, it's not doing much good if it doesn't work. I don't know if it's intentional or just a design oversight between the game client and in-game system.

I'd like to suggest changing the term for "X% Accuracy" in the Justice Review. I don't believe the term "Accuracy" is correct. I think this is a problem for a couple reasons.

1. My vote is nearly 100% accurate, in the sense that I meant to Punish and I clicked Punish. Inaccurate votes would be when I meant to Punish and I clicked Pardon instead.

2. "Accuracy" seems like it implies that my goal is to vote the way the communities votes. This isn't what you are asking the Tribunal to do. You don't want people thinking "What is everyone else going to vote?". You want them thinking "Do I want to play with the accused person?". This may not discourage people from asking the latter, but it's not encouraging it either.

3. This wording very strongly encourages me to think that voting in the minority (or "inaccurate&quot is bad, which I don't think is always the case. Even if voting in the minority is often "wrong", as in the case is objectively a Punish and I voted Pardon, should I feel chastised that my opinion is outside of the community norm?

4. What you're actually gauging is my personal judgement vs the community judgment. Is my judgment more or less "accurate"? It might be more or less "consistent" or "in keeping" or "in agreement", but it's not less "accurate".

Suggestions for alternative copy, X%: with the majority, with consensus, consistent...

As I write this out, I'm wondering if the best course of action is to remove that metric entirely. But then you'd have to explain how ELO is gained or lost aside from just doing the Tribunal every day.

Maybe doing the Tribunal every day is enough. Maybe that's exactly what you want people to do, simply vote on 20 cases every day. Does one need an extra incentive to vote "accurately"? Don't you want people voting the way they feel about the case, whether that is "accurate" or not?